DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of NY, 250 So. 2d 754.

214 citing documents.

  • Cutchall v. Great American Pump Co. 460 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • Brumley v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. 459 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , (1971); LeBouef v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 623 F.2d 985 (5th Cir.1980).
  • Winterrowd v. Travelers Indem. Co. 452 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    1981); Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of New York, , (1971); (La.App.
  • Sibley v. Gifford-Hill & Co. 456 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Co. of New York, , (1971): In this civil case, the plaintiffs’ burden is to prove causation by a preponderance of the evidence.
  • Moore v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 454 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • Magee v. Jefferson Rental 454 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    The standard which sets out the liability of a
  • Lacey v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Ltd. 452 So. 2d 162 La. 1984
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , (1971); Naquin v. Marquette Cas.
  • Quattlebaum v. Hy-Reach Equipment Inc. 453 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAW The foundation case in Louisiana products liability law is Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , , 755-756 *584 (1971) wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court observed as follows: A manufacturer of a product which involves a risk of injury to the user is liable to any person, whether the purchaser or a third person, who without fault on his part, sustains an injury caused by a defect in the design, co
  • Horne v. Liberty Furniture Co. 452 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , (1971); Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Jewell v. Thompson 445 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    In a case somewhat similar to this, Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971), stated that: “In this civil case, the plaintiffs’ burden is to prove causation by a preponderance of the evidence.
  • Williams v. Airport Appliance & Floor Covering, Inc. 445 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , (1971).
  • Landry v. Bill Garrett Chevrolet, Inc. 443 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Co. of N.Y., , ], the plaintiff in a products liability suit must only prove that the product was defective, i.e. unreasonably dangerous to normal use; that the product was in normal use at the time the injury occurred; that the product's defect caused his injury, and that the injury might reasonably have been antici
  • Allen v. Keeney 442 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    See Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971).
  • Lytell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 439 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    1981); Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y.
  • Smith v. Formica Corp. 439 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Johnson v. Peerless Supply Co. 437 So. 2d 966 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , (1971).
  • Insurance Co. of North America v. Sentinel Safety System, Inc. 437 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Cited as authority for this position is Louisiana products liability law as explicated in a number of cases, and Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., , (1971).
  • Landry v. Bill Garrett Chevrolet, Inc. 430 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Co. of N.Y., , set forth the elements of a products liability claim in Louisiana.
  • Elmwood Plantation v. Ruud Water Heater Div. 435 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , Appellants, in their briefs, contend that "the trial Court's findings that the Ruud heater created and ignited a pyrophoric condition in the wood floor at Elmwood are contrary to a preponderance of the evidence and to established and universally-accepted scientific fact."
  • Oatis v. Catalytic, Inc. 433 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    See: Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co., and its progeny.
  • Pawlak v. Brown 430 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    3rd Cir.1979), writs denied and this court stated: In the leading products liability case, Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, [ , (1971)], supra, the Supreme Court specifically addressed itself to the burden of proof in showing causation in a products liability suit.
  • Jones v. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. 430 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    See Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , and authorities cited therein.
  • Nailor v. International Harvester Co. 430 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , (La.
  • F & S OFFSHORE v. Serv. MacH. & Shipbuilding 430 So. 2d 1167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    ART. 2315 (1) STRICT LIABILITY [4] In Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , -756 (1971), the Louisiana Supreme Court enunciated the law of strict liability for manufacturers of defective products as follows: "A manufacturer of a product which involves a risk of injury to the user is liable to any person, whether the purchaser or a third person, who without fault on his par
  • Benoit v. Ryan Chevrolet 428 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , (1971).
  • Harris v. Atlanta Stove Works, Inc. 428 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Under Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , rehearing denied, August 12, 1971, the plaintiff in a products liability suit must only prove that: (1) the product was defective, i.e., unreasonably dangerous to normal use, (2) the product's defect caused the injury, (3) the injury might reasonably have been anticipated by the manufacturer
  • Storey v. Lambert's Limbs & Braces, Inc. 426 So. 2d 676 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y.
  • Hughes v. Buccaneer Wash & Dry Cleaning Center 423 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Lovell v. Earl Grissmer Co., Inc. 422 So. 2d 1344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    1974); and Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971), a manufacturer is presumed to know of the vices in his product, regardless of actual knowledge.
  • Baronet v. Mobil Chemical Corp. 422 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of N.Y., , (1971).
  • LaBorde v. General Motors Corp. 422 So. 2d 1333 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971); LoBrono v. Gene Ducote Volkswagen, Inc.
  • Robertson v. Gulf South Beverage, Inc. 421 So. 2d 877 La. 1982
    We consider that these types of cases are better analyzed under the test set out in Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co., , (1971).
  • Melancon v. Continental Oil Co. 420 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Co. of New York, , (1971); (La.
  • Bankers & Shippers Insurance Co. of New York v. Holiday Rambler Corp. 420 So. 2d 1350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , (1971).
  • Braxton v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. 419 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , (1971).
  • Holden v. Clearview Dodge Sales, Inc. 416 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Co., , (1971), in a products liability case a manufacturer has the obligation of producing a product reasonably safe for its intended use.
  • Batiste v. Security Ins. Group 416 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Plaintiffs rely on Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, in support of their argument.
  • Nevle v. National Presto Industries 416 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    The rule of strict liability for manufacturers in a products liability ease was set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N. Y., , (1971) and followed and quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Kent v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 418 So. 2d 493 La. 1982
    Weber v. F. & C. Co., , (1971).
  • Furtado v. Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation 413 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Co. of N. Y., -09 , (1971)."
  • Hingle v. General Motors Corp. 411 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Co. of New York, , (1971).
  • Guillory v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin 411 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    See Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N. Y., , (1971).
  • Guillory v. EMPLOYERS MUT., ETC. 411 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    See Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N. Y., , (1971).
  • Noel v. Esgard, Inc. 411 So. 2d 1108 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    In Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., plaintiff was normally using a hammer when it shattered and a fragment got into his eye and in Weber v. The Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N. Y., , (1971), the court found that the normal use of defendant's cattle dip, i.e., in accordance with instructions and with certain precautions, resulted in the death of the cattle because the dip contained an excessive amount of arsenic.
  • Molenaar v. McGILL MFG. CO., INC. 410 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    (1971), as well as the subsequent jurisprudence has well defined the guidelines to be applied in the present case.
  • Champion v. Panel Era Mfg. Co. 410 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Blue Ridge Insurance v. Belle Alliance Homes, Inc. 408 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    3 Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, , (1971); (La.App.
  • Goudchaux v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 407 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    We note at the outset that plaintiff has cited to this Court a line of jurisprudence characterized by the decision in Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971), in support of his contentions.
  • Joseph v. Albarado 407 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    In Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N. Y., , (1971), the court said 250 So.2d at 755 -756: "A manufacturer of a product which involves a risk of injury to the user is liable to any person, whether the purchaser or a third person, who without fault on his part, sustains an injury caused by a defect in the design, composition, or manufacture of the
  • Ray v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 406 So. 2d 1358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Plaintiff points to Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co., , (1971).